Greenpeace stop a coal train with a polar bear in the Retford area

[AngryMeerkat]

I find it very interesting how this thread has developed.

There is an almost universal condemnation of the action of Greenpeace.

I mentioned early in the thread that I counter Greenpeace chuggers by saying I support Sea Shepherd.

Paul Watson the founder and boss of Sea Shepherd was a founder member of Greenpeace but broke away as he found their methods too tame.

Mention has been made of the secrecy behind the funding of Greenpeace. The funding behind Sea Shepherd is even more convoluted.

I did meet him once in the Galapagos and was "educated" as to various aspects of their activities. I did actually experience one "incident" at first hand. 

They are way more extreme than Greenpeace.

However they have the backing of some very high level people in both business and politics.

So, although you are all against such actions, many very well known people do support such goings on, even if only in private.

By high level I do mean high level.

They would not have been able to act as they have done without this backing.

Bernard

How can you support a group that purposely ram other vessels with the intent to sink them and the potential loss of life that would ensue, on the open seas? Their actions are no different to acts of terrorism, and should be dealt with in the same manner. Support a cause by all means, but purposely putting the lives of innocent people in danger to highlight your cause is simply deplorable. Use the media, use evidence, lobby politicians, but don't endanger other human lives to further your own cause. Your cause and opinions are no more important or valid than anyone else's, especially not someone just trying to earn a wage to feed their family.

 

Mark

[Arthur]

Just looked at some Sea Shepherd web pages. On their merchandise site they feature an 'iPhone ecoskin case'. Really, you couldn't make it up.

 

http://shopgbp.seashepherd.org/

 

Who are these 'top people' or are we in David Icke territory here?

[Horsetan]

Just looked at some Sea Shepherd web pages. On their merchandise site they feature an 'iPhone ecoskin case'. Really, you couldn't make it up.

http://shopgbp.seashepherd.org/

Who are these 'top people' or are we in David Icke territory here?

I have a feeling that even David Icke steers clear of them. Too loony, even by his standards.

[Ozexpatriate]

There is no concrete proof or evidence to suggest the climate is changing due to man and not just going through its natural variations. But I guess, like religion, people will believe what suits them and bend the facts to fit.

Climate skepticism is equally religious.

 

In the US, "belief" in climate change is very noticeably split on political grounds with a very clear 2:1 difference between Democrats and Republicans.

 

Climate skepticism is rising. See page 8.

 

There are reasons for this, particularly in the US.

 

Is the global climate warming? Demonstrably.

Is this just a natural variation? Possibly, but how would adding ~165X* the total amount of CO₂ produced by current levels of volcanism help?

 

* If I've done my sums accurately.

 

There is plenty of opportunity for peaceful protest to raise awareness on this topic without interfering with the operation of railways. The Greenpeace stunt was scheduled to be coincident with a march in New York during a UN climate summit where 310,000 people participated.

 

We should be careful of the sources of "information" on climate change.

 

EDIT: Removed unnecessary Godwin's Law reference.

[AngryMeerkat]

Climate skepticism is equally religious.

In the US, "belief" in climate change is very noticeably split on political grounds with a very clear 2:1 difference between Democrats and Republicans.

 

Climate skepticism is rising. See page 8.

 

There are reasons for this, particularly in the US.

 

Is the global climate warming? Demonstrably.

Is this just a natural variation? Possibly, but how would adding ~165X* the total amount of CO₂ produced by current levels of volcanism help?

 

* If I've done my sums accurately.

 

There is plenty of opportunity for peaceful protest to raise awareness on this topic without interfering with the operation of railways. The Greenpeace stunt was scheduled to be coincident with a march in New York during a UN climate summit where 310,000 people participated.

 

We should be careful of the sources of "information" on climate change.EDIT: Removed unnecessary Godwin's Law reference.

If the scientists can't agree on this subject, what chance do the rest of us have?

 

I agree totally about peaceful protests, and I encourage them almost regardless of what is being protested about as that is a right we have in this country. But I can very rarely, if ever, support direct action. Especially when it's against the wrong target! If Greenpeace were to spend their money on building and proving a reliable clean energy harvesting and delivery system that was affordable to 80% of the population I'm sure the world would support them, I know I would both financially and verbally. While they continue these violent and terrorist acts they will never gain the support of the majority, and rightly so. Don't create a problem, offer a solution.

 

Mark

[Revolution Mike]

If the scientists can't agree on this subject, what chance do the rest of us have?

 

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong - scientific consensus is reasonably clear on man-made climate change.  That isn't to say you can't find conflicting views or that all the science is settled - just because we don't have all the answers doesn't make the basic hypothesis incorrect.

Heck there are still people who argue about evolution but that doesn't make them right!

 

I don't think anyone can disagree that greenhouse gases exist and cause warming - that science is very easy to test.

Nor does anyone dispute that natural climate change exists or that man-made emissions are a very small fraction of global emissions.

The issue is whether a dramatic increase in man-made emissions can cause enough instability in the global feedback systems to throw things out of kilter (and if so by how much). 

[Reorte]

If the scientists can't agree on this subject, what chance do the rest of us have?

The majority of them do seem to agree, at least broadly. There are an awful lot of details that they don't agree about.

 

I agree totally about peaceful protests, and I encourage them almost regardless of what is being protested about as that is a right we have in this country. But I can very rarely, if ever, support direct action.

Very rarely or ever? I think it's a big important difference and it's why it worries me that I've got a handful of disagrees. "Rarely" implies there is the possibility, even if it's under circumstances you simply can't imagine happening. That is a healthy attitude. "Never" though is simply being dogmatic. It implies that you already know everything, that it's completely impossible for you to be wrong, and that the law is above question. "To all practical limits in the UK 'never'" - that's fine, and that's my position. I simply can't fathom how there could possibly be any disagreement with that so at least please do me the service of counter-arguing instead of slapping on "disagree." "Disagree" is something I think should be reserved for people who are just being obnoxious, not for having a different view in a serious debate.

[The Stationmaster]

The BBC reported this:

Hardly a reliable source I would have thought.

 

It does raise the question of what the track layout at this location really was. Based on proximity to the power station I am presuming that this occurred on the branch serving the power station rather than a mainline with passenger traffic but I have no idea.

 

Looking at Google maps the junction with the mainline is between Retford and Gainsborough.

If you look at Post 136 on the previous page you will see most of the details of the line except the gradients (it's more or less level as far as I know).

That statement implies that the procedures are the one and only way of being safe, and are guarenteed to be safe. Neither of those is true. They are certainly drawn up by competent and experienced people (I hope so at any rate!) so they are very, very likely to be the safest way of doing something but that's the most you can say.

 

I'm sorry to have to keep banging on this drum but I find the dogmatic approach I'm seeing rather disturbing. It is treating things as absolutes that simply aren't absolute. Equating "against the rules" with "unsafe" means not making any judgments. When it comes to being safe judgment is always required since the converse "sticking with the rules" equates to "safe" isn't always true either - even if everything is being done properly according to procedure I'd hope that people would still apply judgment and back out of an action if there was something they weren't happy about.

 

 

This view is in fact at odds with the situation as decided by several Inquiries and courts in Britain following the introduction of railway privatisation.  In the earliest example I know of, following the Southall collision, a very competent Signalling Inspector who I knew well was heavily criticised by a member of the legal trade for not carrying out the precise requirements of the Rule Book in the order in which they were written and he was accordingly censured by the Inquiry for making judgements.  Something similar happened at the Ladbroke Grove Inquiry and it is, in effect, a common feature of RAIB reports.

 

In other words the railway industry has been forced to move on from the situation of exercising judgement and allowing individuals to, in effect, assess their personal risks in any circumstance to one where the Rule Book (for example) is almost a quasi legal document and is regarded as such by the legal trade.  The latter of course invariably work in black & white - which is probably a reason why so many processes & procedures in this country are now so complicated and over wordy, they become black & white with no wriggle room in between.  One can but hope the courts apply a similar approach in dealing with this particular pack of idiots in respect of their behaviour on this piece of railway.

 

As far as 'Private & Not For Publication' is concerned the situation now - thanks to legal interpretation of primary legislation  - is that as the national rail network theoretically has full open access the necessary documentation needed to assist in preparing a bid for such access should be freely available to anyone who might be seeking such access and without payment for it.

 

In the past BR, and its predecessors put 'Private & Not For Publication' on their documentation mainly to give legal force should anyone abuse or misuse such information as the documents contained.  Thus for example personal accident reports were so annotated for the very specific reason that they would not then be available to members of the legal trade acting on behalf of an injured person (the background reason for that being that in preparing and signing such forms the person doing so was exercising a judgement based on his - in those days - knowledge of the facts and events which had led to the injury/death.

 

Returning, finally, to this specific incident we can but hope that the strictures the courts etc place on working railway staff in their everyday working lives are applied equally to those who have trespassed on the railway - in itself an offence - and who then behaved in a manner dangerous both to themselves and potentially to others.  Direct action is one thing, reckless stupidity is, in my view, something else and in this instance almost all of it seemingly consisted of offences against railway byelaws (which are also freely available to those who care to look).

[Arthur]

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong - scientific consensus is reasonably clear on man-made climate change.

..........

 

The issue is whether a dramatic increase in man-made emissions can cause enough instability in the global feedback systems to throw things out of kilter (and if so by how much).

 

Well, as a sceptic, I don't disagree with much you say there Mike. However, in essence what you are saying is that there's a 'consensus' but that nobody agrees on just how big the problem is, or even if it is a problem; and with that I agree.

 

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, anthropogenic CO2 is a small fraction of the total, so, a) is our contribution significant, b )IS the planet warming and c) IF so, do we live with it, manage it or return to our caves.

 

Global temperatures have been stable for 16 years or so, the IPCC accept that. Global temperatures have not even reached the BEST case predictions of the warming theorists. The IPCC accept that nobody knows why the predictions are wrong. Theories, I'm aware of them, yes, but no settled answer.

 

Proof that we really don't understand systems as complex, multi factorial and chaotic as climate. Our best computer predictions, clearly based on incomplete and misunderstood data, have been shown to be wrong.

 

Any wonder that some of us are sceptics?

[Reorte]

This view is in fact at odds with the situation as decided by several Inquiries and courts in Britain following the introduction of railway privatisation. 

I don't think there's a conflict there. Rules exist so that people can go about their jobs as safely as possible. They don't decide what's safe, they reflect it ("this is dangerous so we'll make a rule saying don't do it"). By the sounds of it they're comprehensive enough so that there's no legitimate reason for not following them. But what does not following them mean? It means that there is a strong possibility that your behaviour is more dangerous. How much more will range from "none at all" to "utterly insane". Determining where on that scale it lies will, I hope, reflect the outcome when someone is dragged up for breaking them (some rule breaches are more serious than others).

 

I suppose it's even possible that it may be safer, but I am confident that if you have thought of a safer way to do something there are paths for suggesting it and having it scrutinised by the experts, so still no excuse to go out and try it.

[Revolution Mike]

Well, as a sceptic, I don't disagree with much you say there Mike. However, in essence what you are saying is that there's a 'consensus' but that nobody agrees on just how big the problem is, or even if it is a problem; and with that I agree.

 

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, anthropogenic CO2 is a small fraction of the total, so, a) is our contribution significant, b )IS the planet warming and c) IF so, do we live with it, manage it or return to our caves.

 

Global temperatures have been stable for 16 years or so, the IPCC accept that. Global temperatures have not even reached the BEST case predictions of the warming theorists. The IPCC accept that nobody knows why the predictions are wrong. Theories, I'm aware of them, yes, but no settled answer.

 

Proof that we really don't understand systems as complex, multi factorial and chaotic as climate. Our best computer predictions, clearly based on incomplete and misunderstood data, have been shown to be wrong.

 

Any wonder that some of us are sceptics?

 

Hi Arthur

 

I think the problem is that you could say the same about any complex area of science - we continuously research and improve our understanding.

 

You are of course right that computer models don't tell us an accurate picture, but nor do the IPCC claim that they will! They are our best information at the current time and are updated all the time. 

 

The global temperature data is incredibly difficult to reach meaningful conclusions on - 16 years is nothing in climate terms, the data is very varied in source and quality and we just do not have enough long term data.  We have tried (with some varying degrees of success) to recreate historical data from a number of proxy sources. Then correction factors are used to make different data sources comparable - these are refined as we learn more.  The problem is that it is then easy to cry foul ie that the books are being fiddled! In a sense they are, but only because we know more.

 

Personally I'm far from convinced that global temperature data is that useful - it is a long term trend indicator rather than something that we should worry about yearly.

 

Nevertheless, the general trends over the last 150 years or so of temperature data are clearly showing rises in temperature.  Shorter term pauses or even reductions in temperature are not really an issue for such a complex system.

 

It is a few years since I did any academic work on climate change (though I still follow the arguments more loosely), but I would strongly recommend anyone interested in the subject reads some of the IPCC summary reports. They are relatively easy to understand and set out the evidence and the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. They also point out the uncertainty where appropriate as any science of this kind should.

 

Cheers, Mike

[The Stationmaster]

I don't think there's a conflict there. Rules exist so that people can go about their jobs as safely as possible. They don't decide what's safe, they reflect it ("this is dangerous so we'll make a rule saying don't do it"). By the sounds of it they're comprehensive enough so that there's no legitimate reason for not following them. But what does not following them mean? It means that there is a strong possibility that your behaviour is more dangerous. How much more will range from "none at all" to "utterly insane". Determining where on that scale it lies will, I hope, reflect the outcome when someone is dragged up for breaking them (some rule breaches are more serious than others).

 

I suppose it's even possible that it may be safer, but I am confident that if you have thought of a safer way to do something there are paths for suggesting it and having it scrutinised by the experts, so still no excuse to go out and try it.

Not following them effectively means that if something untoward happens you will be in the dock - literally - and might even end up in prison.

 

Hopefully they, and (more so) Instructions are written with safety in mind but I'm afraid that increasingly some Instructions seem to be framed more with the intent of covering the back of those who issue them than any practical application of safe working because they are too long and complex to follow.  A more specific problem with the railway Rule Book, apart from its sheer volume, is that it has not only become very much a top down document but those at the top of the organisation charged with producing it have no railway experience whatsoever and it is also difficult to get through to the organisation which nowadays writes it any practical suggestions from ground level.  None of this doesn't necessarily mean it isn't fit for purpose but the whole process is far more cumbersome and much less direct than it was in BR days - a simple answer would be to take responsibility for it from RSSB and place it with NR, particularly so now the latter is basically no longer a commercial concern.

 

So there can be a difference between what is written and its practicality but when the law gets involved it all becomes black & white because there cannot be any greys in between.  Mind you in this incident we are not talking about Rules we are talking about Byelaws - which are specific, irrespective of outcome.

 

An interesting aside to this is one which in some respects taxed BR over a number of years - what is the difference between a SPAD when nothing happens apart from a train passing a signal at danger and one where the train passes a signal at danger and hits something else, possibly with loss of life.  In reality the two are no different, the only difference is what caused the SPAD which would affect the degree of culpability on the part of the Driver concerned.  But in more than one case the law has taken the view that in the event of a death, or even severe injuries, the Driver must be prosecuted (a view to which I don't necessarily subscribe because what matters is the reason for the SPAD and not the consequences).

 

A similar view could perhaps be applied to the Cottam incident did the Greenpeace people who did what they did (according to their own video) do it on purpose and with specific intent or did they do it as a result of happenstance and without intent?

[Arthur]

Again Mike (Red Death), no major disagreements about what you say. Yes, global temperatures have shown a rise over 150 years but how much of that can we link to CO2, let alone CO2 from anthropogenic sources? I'm not wishing to get into an endless tit for tat debate, just demonstrating that in this, as in ALL science, scepticism is healthy and constructive. One way in which we improve our understanding. To doubt is not to be a naysayer nor to be, that most pejorative of terms, a denier.

 

More generally speaking, environmental campaigners are often self righteous, 'we know best' and the whole movement has a history of predictions of catastrophe which have, in the event, just melted away (not through global warming one hopes!!).

 

In the early 70's I read Paul Ehrlichs book, The Population Bomb, published 1968 in which he predicted;

 

'The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...'

 

Might I add this. I was one of the Doomwatch generation, the 1970-72 TV drama series about environmental disasters. Between 1973-76 I read Biology, with an emphasis on the environment, at Royal Holloway, London. Over the years I've seen these countless predictions of impending environmental catastrophe not one of which has come anything like close to fulfilment.

 

Too many cries of wolf.

[Horsetan]

In the long run we're all dead anyway.

[Arthur]

 

 

We're doomed I tell ye, DOOMED!'

[AngryMeerkat]

The majority of them do seem to agree, at least broadly. There are an awful lot of details that they don't agree about.Very rarely or ever? I think it's a big important difference and it's why it worries me that I've got a handful of disagrees. "Rarely" implies there is the possibility, even if it's under circumstances you simply can't imagine happening. That is a healthy attitude. "Never" though is simply being dogmatic. It implies that you already know everything, that it's completely impossible for you to be wrong, and that the law is above question. "To all practical limits in the UK 'never'" - that's fine, and that's my position. I simply can't fathom how there could possibly be any disagreement with that so at least please do me the service of counter-arguing instead of slapping on "disagree." "Disagree" is something I think should be reserved for people who are just being obnoxious, not for having a different view in a serious debate.

I've not used the disagree button since its introduction, preferring to speak and explain rather than disagree and walk away, so you may be directing that at the wrong person I'm afraid.

 

As for the difference between 'very rarely' and 'if ever' then it has nothing to do with being right or wrong or knowing it all, and more to do with going about things in the correct way that gets the majority on side while leaving the minority alienated. This cannot and will not be achieved by hands-on actions, ever. To win a war of any kind you need to win the hearts and minds of the populace. You win the hearts by helping them to live a better life in practical terms - something Greenpeace have never done with any of their direct action protests, usually creating the exact opposite scenario. You win their minds by giving them real evidence that you are right and 'the other group' are wrong, again something Greenpeace have completely failed to do in almost every protest they have ever arranged.

 

The thing scientists agree on is the planet is warming up. The thing they don't agree on is why, and the why is the basis for the whole Greenpeace existence. Until the various scientists can agree on why the planet is warming up and how much, if any, is being caused by humans, then the Greenpeace argument is just a bunch of people forcing their ideals on everyone else, which makes them no better than ISIS or Al Queda and leaves them in the terrorist bracket.

 

Mark

[Reorte]

More generally speaking, environmental campaigners are often self righteous, 'we know best' and the whole movement has a history of predictions of catastrophe which have, in the event, just melted away (not through global warming one hopes!!).

The most publically-noticable campaigners (for any cause) are usually the more lunatic fringe and they often damage their own cause with their over-reactions which make people counter-react in the opposite direction. Sometimes some people do know best; if they didn't no generally-held views would ever change, but disruptive stunts aren't a good way of changing peoples' minds. What is a good method, of both getting a message out there in the first place and persuading people? Getting the message out needs publicity and stupid stunts are an easy way of doing that, so they'll continue to happen. Maybe they can be given some history books to read in prison with examples of people who got their message out there without being a pillock.

 

[Reorte]

I've not used the disagree button since its introduction, preferring to speak and explain rather than disagree and walk away, so you may be directing that at the wrong person I'm afraid.

Sorry about that, it wasn't directed at you.

 

As for the difference between 'very rarely' and 'if ever' then it has nothing to do with being right or wrong or knowing it all, and more to do with going about things in the correct way that gets the majority on side while leaving the minority alienated. This cannot and will not be achieved by hands-on actions, ever.

I only agree with that in specifics. It's almost certainly true in the UK (I say "almost" because IMO it's dangerous to be certain about anything at all) but may not be under a very repressive regime. Maybe people disagree with me because they're not interested in far away hypotheticals which won't apply in the UK in a thread about a specific event. I hope that's all it is.

[Arthur]

I think that it's been said already, direct action might have some place in repressive regimes where, if you don't follow the line, you don't have a voice. There'll be a high price to be paid and, as we've seen following the Arab Spring, you might not get quite what you wanted.

 

In the past, it may have had some legitimacy in this country but not for many years now. We live in a democracy, imperfect? yes, but as good as any.

 

Today, any group in the west can get it's message out, social media, a generally receptive TV and legitimate and peaceful protest. Who, here, is unaware of the general aims of Greenpeace and the Global Warming lobby?

 

The problem is that some groups aren't happy with winning the debate. So certain are they of their moral superiority that they want to impose their will immediately.

[Dave Scott]

I've not used the disagree button since its introduction, preferring to speak and explain rather than disagree and walk away, so you may be directing that at the wrong person I'm afraid.

 

As for the difference between 'very rarely' and 'if ever' then it has nothing to do with being right or wrong or knowing it all, and more to do with going about things in the correct way that gets the majority on side while leaving the minority alienated. This cannot and will not be achieved by hands-on actions, ever. To win a war of any kind you need to win the hearts and minds of the populace. You win the hearts by helping them to live a better life in practical terms - something Greenpeace have never done with any of their direct action protests, usually creating the exact opposite scenario. You win their minds by giving them real evidence that you are right and 'the other group' are wrong, again something Greenpeace have completely failed to do in almost every protest they have ever arranged.

 

The thing scientists agree on is the planet is warming up. The thing they don't agree on is why, and the why is the basis for the whole Greenpeace existence. Until the various scientists can agree on why the planet is warming up and how much, if any, is being caused by humans, then the Greenpeace argument is just a bunch of people forcing their ideals on everyone else, which makes them no better than ISIS or Al Queda and leaves them in the terrorist bracket.

 

Mark

Mark

         The disagree statement was probably directed at me and I have explained why I used it in an earlier post

 

Dave

[Reorte]

Mark

         The disagree statement was probably directed at me and I have explained why I used it in an earlier post

I was in a grumling bad mood earlier and probably over-reacted anyway. Thank you for your explanation.

[Revolution Mike]

The thing scientists agree on is the planet is warming up. The thing they don't agree on is why, and the why is the basis for the whole Greenpeace existence. Until the various scientists can agree on why the planet is warming up and how much, if any, is being caused by humans, then the Greenpeace argument is just a bunch of people forcing their ideals on everyone else, which makes them no better than ISIS or Al Queda and leaves them in the terrorist bracket.

 

Sorry but your last sentence is just nonsense. Equating Greenpeace with ISIS or AQ is the sort of hyperbole which is actually grossly offensive to all those affected by ISIS or AQ or any other form of terrorism. Whether you agree or disagree with Greenpeace is absolutely fine, but it is manifestly not the case that they use violence or the threat of violence to further their cause.

[AngryMeerkat]

Sorry but your last sentence is just nonsense. Equating Greenpeace with ISIS or AQ is the sort of hyperbole which is actually grossly offensive to all those affected by ISIS or AQ or any other form of terrorism. Whether you agree or disagree with Greenpeace is absolutely fine, but it is manifestly not the case that they use violence or the threat of violence to further their cause.

Terrorist - a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

 

Terrorism - the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.

 

I would say the driver of the coal train felt pretty intimidated by a group of activists stopping his train. A group intimidating people to achieve their goal, that fits the definition of terrorist and terrorism to me. The goals change, the methods differ, but a group of people coercing one man into doing what the group want through violence or the threat of overwhelming numbers is terrorism. Disagree all you like, but what they do is illegal, dangerous and stupid and the sooner the companies this group target grow a backbone and charge these people the better for everyone.

 

If somebody used their computer to hack into the National Grid and shut down some power sectors, that is cyber-terrorism and the penalty is many years in prison. This group tried to do a similar thing on a smaller scale but instead trespassed, used the threat of numbers to overwhelm the driver, then boarded the train and emptied some of its contents over the side (polluting the land) and they get away with it. How anyone can support such lunacy is beyond me and most sane people (thankfully!)

 

Mark

[Ozexpatriate]

If the scientists can't agree on this subject, what chance do the rest of us have?

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong - scientific consensus is reasonably clear on man-made climate change.  That isn't to say you can't find conflicting views or that all the science is settled - just because we don't have all the answers doesn't make the basic hypothesis incorrect.

The majority of them do seem to agree, at least broadly. There are an awful lot of details that they don't agree about.

Well, as a sceptic, I don't disagree with much you say there Mike. However, in essence what you are saying is that there's a 'consensus' but that nobody agrees on just how big the problem is, or even if it is a problem; and with that I agree.

Science welcomes healthy skepticism. That is the scientific method, but the consensus of the scientific community that global warming exists is very high. It is less clear exactly how strong the scientific consensus is that continued, increasing, anthropogenic CO₂ will have a strongly adverse impact on climate. The 97% number that gets thrown around refers to global warming, not the anthropogenic debate.

 

There certainly is a reluctance of people to accept the idea that there is a scientific consensus.  See page 12.

 

Is climate science an inexact science? Yes of course it is. The way to manage complexity is to deliberately simplify the problem and for me the argument is pretty simple.

 

We know there have been many tumultuous climate changes over the 4.5 billion years of the planet's history and the comfortable little climate bubble that H. sapiens has adapted nicely into is but a moment in geological time. Why would we want to risk messing it up?  Why would we conduct an uncontrolled experiment in terraforming on ourselves?

 

If there were 165 times the present number of volcanoes erupting, would we be worried? (Yes I know volcanoes also produce lots of ejecta and toxic gases besides CO₂ that have more harmful outcomes, but I think you know what I mean.) It is the magnitude of CO₂ which we produce that is frightening to me. (None of us live in China but if you've ever seen pictures of the air quality issues there, it is clear there are tangible, self-evident outcomes.)

 

Might the purported scientific consensus be wrong? Perhaps. I've seen internet commentators who declare skeptics to be modern day Galileos but the argument that causation is unproven and can therefore be blissfully ignored is structurally no different from specifically religious arguments about the origins of life and the age of the planet. It stems from an intentional unwillingness to accept the plausibility of the theory, fuelled by a politicized propaganda campaign by moneyed interests (at least in the US).

[Ozexpatriate]

I think that it's been said already, direct action might have some place in repressive regimes where, if you don't follow the line, you don't have a voice. There'll be a high price to be paid and, as we've seen following the Arab Spring, you might not get quite what you wanted.

The problem with the Arab Spring is that they misunderstood that democracy is not majority rule. It is about democratically elected representatives working for all their constituents (including those that didn't vote for them) and protecting the rights of minorities.